Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Intel Celeron G540 and Celeron G440 Processors Review

Started by: Pouria | Date 09/07/11 03:52:24 PM
Comments: 29 | Last Comment:  08/04/12 01:08:40 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-17]

1. 
I don't like to say this but Ive never ever seen a Celeron CPU that is not sucked!
If you dont familiar with the name Celeron NEVER buy a Processor that carries that lame brand. Celeron! What a name. Exactly what it is in real life. Now throw me my negatives please.
0 2 [Posted by: Pouria  | Date: 09/07/11 03:52:24 PM]
Reply

2. 
This is a very good article.
The only thing more that i would like to see is the inclusion of the g530T in the tests against the e350. It only costs $ 10 more and will probably have a lower power consumption than the g540 ( And since it has EIST It may even has the lowest idle power consumption).

The g530T could also be very good for a small server.

PS: sorry for my english, it is not my native language.
1 1 [Posted by: 8051  | Date: 09/07/11 04:46:49 PM]
Reply

3. 
@Pouria

Sorry you're wrong. The Celeron 300A back in the old days was probably the best overclocking CPU of it's time. I am personally running a Celeron E3200 overclocked to 3.8ghz & it's quite speedy.
1 0 [Posted by: Klinky  | Date: 09/07/11 08:14:27 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I'm glad for my "thumb down"s
Where I can get those for thanking the reviewer maybe this time also Im right again.
and BTW if the clock of the processor was the only thing then AMD never used PR on its processors package.
and

@8051 :
Go make servers with Celerons......
0 0 [Posted by: Pouria  | Date: 09/08/11 08:02:25 AM]
Reply
 
@Pouria:
By small server I mean an internet gateway, a firewall or a file server for a home network. In these cases the celeron is enough.
1 0 [Posted by: 8051  | Date: 09/08/11 03:42:40 PM]
Reply

4. 
It seems the review used the Gigabyte E350N-USB3 which has probably the highest power consumption for any E350 based motherboard.

Even xbitlabs said it had very high power consumption:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...re-i3-2100t_11.html#sect0

"The thing is that we used Gigabyte E350N-USB3 mainboard to measure the performance of Brazos platform in our today’s test session. And this mainboard wasn’t designed with power-efficiency in mind, and its power consumption is significantly higher than it could have been, had the developers really paid special attention to this aspect. One of the good examples could be the recently reviewed MSI E350IS-E45 mainboard, which power consumption in idle mode was only 7.3 W. It means that good AMD Brazos mainboards can in fact beat Core i3-2100T in idle mode when it comes to energy-efficiency."

However,the much cheaper MSI E350IS-E45 in this article consumes far less power:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...y/amd-e-350_12.html#sect0

It consumes 7.3W at idle,15.8W during a CPU load and 17.5W during a GPU load and 14.9W during 1080p playback.

The Celeron G440 consumes 15.5W at idle,21.7W during CPU load,26.8W during GPU load and 21.9W during 1080p playback.

Regarding the Intel T series processors they are basically standard processors with the clockspeed reduced to fit the lower TDP. Idle power consumption and power consumption during media playback is not that much different than the higher clocked processors in the range. For instance I was looking at undervolting my Core i3 2100 and it seems that the Core i3 2100 can be modified to have similar power consumption to a Core i3 2100t by reducing the clockspeed.


3 0 [Posted by: USER2000  | Date: 09/08/11 02:55:34 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Proof that Gavric and xbit is heavily intel biased, not that more proof was needed. He KNOWS that gigabyte mobo is the worst one he could have used for the e-350.
0 0 [Posted by: jimbo75  | Date: 11/17/11 03:55:58 AM]
Reply

5. 
Hi

the G540 has less idle power consumption than the G440...so why didn't you test the G540 against the E-350.

this would be (for me) more interresting.
1 0 [Posted by: sanity  | Date: 09/08/11 08:55:19 AM]
Reply

6. 
One thing I do not understand:
The comparative analysis between processors (page 7, Power consumption) the G440 you get the following results:
System Power Consumption, Idle, W: 45.7
System Power Consumption, 100% load, W: 53.0
On the next page, in comparison with the E-350, the same title on the graph, offer different results:
System Power Consumption, Idle, W: 15.5
All subsequent results (CPU burn, burn GPU) offer less power consumption than the first graph 53 W
What is the explanation?
Maybe there is something I have not understood ...
1 0 [Posted by: oleares  | Date: 09/08/11 09:09:23 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
The first test has used systems with additional discrete graphics card. The second one was with integrated GPUs.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 09/08/11 11:51:25 AM]
Reply
 
Thank you. Sorry, I'm a clueless
1 0 [Posted by: oleares  | Date: 09/08/11 01:27:15 PM]
Reply

7. 
to bad overclock is totally locked, I think is something that should be considered, the e3400 can run at almost 4GHz, it's still going to be slower, and use a lot more power, but the gap will be lower...

the g5xx @ 4GHz would be amazing, as many old Celerons like the 300A and some others.... to bad Intel killed it for enthusiasts,

also, for the same price of the g540 you can buy a E5700,

but anyway, good performance/power usage/price... can even be paired with something like a HD6750 and run almost any game well enough,
0 0 [Posted by: RBM  | Date: 09/08/11 09:32:11 AM]
Reply

8. 
don't forget that amd updated there low power line. it is even more efficient now and it has turbo in it. so you should buy there and compare the cpu's (its called E400 or something like that)
0 0 [Posted by: massau  | Date: 09/08/11 10:06:02 AM]
Reply

9. 
Intel is such a cluster fudge company when it comes to their cpu marketing. I mean, really do they still need a Celeron or a Pentium anymore.... All that does is confuse the consumor even more, let alone trying to explain to the avg consumor what Core i7, i5 and i3 means. If intel was smart they would kill off the Pentium and Celeron names and use the Core i3 as their base product from now on.
0 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 09/09/11 01:46:44 AM]
Reply

10. 
The Celeron G440 you reviewed is weaker than the retail one featuring only 512KB L3 cache instead of 1MB. How would the 1MB version fare in terms of performance and power consumption?
0 0 [Posted by: Pliky  | Date: 09/09/11 03:14:20 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
All G440 have 1MB L3 cache, and there is only one version of G440

If you read 512KB in some website, then it is probably a typing error
0 0 [Posted by: maroon1  | Date: 09/09/11 06:19:55 AM]
Reply
 
Don't think it's a typing error, CPU-Z shows 512KB too http://www.xbitlabs.com/a...on-g540-g440_2.html#sect0 .
0 0 [Posted by: Pliky  | Date: 09/09/11 10:56:41 AM]
Reply

11. 
Shame on Intel. She wants to fill each of corners with its cpus.
What resorts are left for AMD to survive?
0 1 [Posted by: Azazel  | Date: 09/09/11 06:50:03 AM]
Reply

12. 
According to Intel, the G530 and G540 have support for only DDR3-1066 RAM, just like the G620 (unlike the G840/G850). Can you verify that they can run at higher (1333+) speeds?
0 0 [Posted by: Windy  | Date: 09/09/11 07:20:41 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
As I wrote in the review, all Celerons can work with DDR3-1067/1333/1600/1866/2133 on Z68/P67 mainboards. The problem with 1333+ speeds exists only on H67/H61 systems.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 09/10/11 05:05:14 AM]
Reply
 
Why is that?
All new Celerons have IMC on its die. How chipset can affect the problem?
0 0 [Posted by: Aone  | Date: 09/10/11 07:57:37 PM]
Reply
 
Overclocking is disabled on H67/H61 as well as memory overclocking. It's artifical limitation by marketing reasons.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 09/11/11 07:26:57 AM]
Reply

13. 
In the Power Consumption test the G440 consume about 5 W more then the other Celeron CPUs. If all i want is a system with low idle consumption I could pair for example g540 with the same configuration as the one used against the e350 and end upp with an even lower consumption, right?
0 0 [Posted by: xtrex  | Date: 09/13/11 12:42:10 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Yes. But if you will use Celeron G440 with integrated video then you get even less power consumption: 15-16W in Idle and 21-26W in high load.
0 0 [Posted by: Tester128  | Date: 11/17/11 08:24:59 PM]
Reply
 
you mention in the review (which is great, btw), that EIST would significantly improve idle performance. i and others (judgeing from comments) would be interested in seeing the performance of the G540 with the same setup (including using integrated video) as the G440, when the G440 was compared against the e350.
0 0 [Posted by: dglockner  | Date: 02/24/12 10:40:38 AM]
Reply

14. 
Great review. It helped me a lot. I went with a G530 for a very basic 720P console style mini-ITX HTPC. Using a GeForce GTS 250 GPU, I'm getting a solid 60FPS out of almost every game I throw at it (1366x768 res), except for BF3 which is video card limited. Yes... It runs Crysis.

This is why I love this site. You're the only people who actually did a good test of these CPUs.
1 0 [Posted by: Revenant  | Date: 11/20/11 09:25:01 AM]
Reply

15. 
Ah yes! tyvm for this article, was gonna go for a budget Athlon II X2 250 gaming system like my friends, but seeing this i changed my mind. Gonna be fun pwning them with a Celeron bwahaha :D
1 0 [Posted by: Kilen81  | Date: 12/01/11 05:57:52 PM]
Reply

16. 
When a G540 is cheaper and better than a X2 250 you know AMD have truly lost it.
0 0 [Posted by: Randomguy  | Date: 07/28/12 03:42:55 AM]
Reply

17. 
I'm curious how much of an effect the H61@1333 has on a G540 compared to your tests with the P67@1600. I hope it's not too dramatic, I overlooked that and just purchased the combo, assuming all along the review had the G540 running on a H61 board
0 0 [Posted by: slinky  | Date: 08/04/12 01:08:40 AM]
Reply

[1-17]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment